FL completes an unspeakable act
News by oldedude     March 23, 2025 6:17 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (19 comments) [264 views]

Gabbard and Ratcliffe perjured themselves when giving testimony before Congress...
Government by Curt_Anderson     March 26, 2025 10:56 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (24 comments) [258 views]

Congressional Republicans target PBS and NPR funding in contentious hearing
Media by HatetheSwamp     March 27, 2025 3:55 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (7 comments) [58 views]

Trump signs order seeking to overhaul US elections
Politics by Navy2711     March 25, 2025 7:40 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Curt_Anderson (21 comments) [256 views]

Rep. Crockett refers to Greg Abbott, who is disabled, as ‘Governor Hot Wheels’
Politics by HatetheSwamp     March 27, 2025 3:40 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Ponderer (6 comments) [52 views]

Which lib journalist is the biggest hack? The RUTHLESS "Hack Madness 2025"
Journalism by HatetheSwamp     March 22, 2025 4:02 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (3 comments) [73 views]

The real reason for Trump's tariffs. Maybe.
Politics by meagain     March 27, 2025 8:09 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: (0 comments) [9 views]

I know po disregards fact...
Media by HatetheSwamp     March 27, 2025 5:15 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (1 comments) [34 views]

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem visits El Salvador prison where deported Venezuelans are held
Crime by HatetheSwamp     March 27, 2025 3:13 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: (0 comments) [14 views]

What does the Trump administration consider "war"?
Military by Curt_Anderson     March 26, 2025 9:39 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (3 comments) [53 views]

Is love thy neighbor and WWJD passé among Republican Christians? By Curt_Anderson March 23, 2025 2:45 pm Category: Religion (5.0 from 1 vote) Rules of the Post Write A New Article How To Post Here

Whatever happened to welcoming strangers? See the second link for the biblical view and verses about foreigners.

Conservatives seem to have no problems with deporting immigrants (and even non-immigrants) and locking them up in foreign hellhole prisons without due process. They would happily deport US-born children of immigrant parents even though it is unconstitutional. Conservatives seem to believe that immigrants are mostly criminally inclined with a tendency to rob, rape and murder.

I don't expect we will hear much Republican outcry about this, Trump's latest anti-immigration maneuver:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -U.S. President Donald Trump's administration will revoke the temporary legal status of 530,000 Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans in the United States, according to a Federal Register notice on Friday, the latest expansion of his crackdown on immigration.

Cited and related links:

1. usnews.com
2. openbible.info

Comments Start Below

by HatetheSwamp on March 23, 2025 3:02 pm "Conservatives seem to have no problems with deporting immigrants (and even non-immigrants)..." Non-immigrants? Curt Anderson, PhD, Bible scholar extraordinaire, baha ha. by Donna on March 23, 2025 3:17 pm Good that you included that Bible link, Curt, else people who don't read closely might think that those were your opinions. by HatetheSwamp on March 23, 2025 3:23 pm None of the New Testament references are relevant. So, we're back to you progressive Swampcultists wanting conservatives, or Republicans, to believe that ours is an Old Testament theocracy, baha. Noop. by Navy2711 on March 23, 2025 3:36 pm Every Sunday, conservatives gather and worship a man with liberal values. I honestly wonder what goes through their minds when the pastor reads the words "Love thy neighbor," "Turn the other cheek," "Love your enemies," and "Blessed are the merciful." Then they leave church, turn on Fox, and cheer when Trump incites violence, believing that that makes him "good" and "strong." Conservatives get the same thing out of both religion and politics: 1. Tribalistic validation 2. Someone to tell them what to think by Ponderer on March 23, 2025 3:46 pm I'm more shocked by the fact that there were 530,000 Cuban, Haitian, Nicaraguan and Venezuelan gang members, rapists, drug mules and child sex traffickers wandering free among our Blessed White American Citizens! 🙄 Curt, this is a rogue, fascist regime in the process of seeing what it can get away with and what it has to work harder at getting away with. They're already rounding up and dragging legal residents off the streets with no due process whatsoever (Remember the wailing and gnashing of teeth from our resident MAGA Hats when they hallucinated about Biden doing something some idiot told them was unconstitutional?). The stories of the innocent victims who have been disappeared by this regime already with its Gestapo-like tactics are heartbreaking and sound absolutely nothing like the work of the United States of America. Just swept up haphazardly as all get-out. Sent to a semi-black torture site for having a tattoo that some MAGAfuck Gestapo agent didn't understand and was in no way gang affiliated. Like Venezuelan gangs are just chock-full of gay makeup artists. by oldedude on March 23, 2025 4:11 pm and if your neighbor is robbing you, it is your responsibility and duty to protect yourself and your family. You forgot that part. by HatetheSwamp on March 23, 2025 4:13 pm "Every Sunday, conservatives gather and worship a man with liberal values." You value liberalism more, perhaps, than you should. I don't know that Jesus preached big government. by oldedude on March 23, 2025 4:19 pm Maybe classical liberalism. by HatetheSwamp on March 23, 2025 4:23 pm "The stories of the innocent victims who have been disappeared by this regime..." Oy freakin friggin EFFINvey! Do tell, po, do tell. by Navy2711 on March 23, 2025 4:25 pm "I'm more shocked by the fact that there were 530,000 Cuban, Haitian, Nicaraguan and Venezuelan gang members, rapists, drug mules and child sex traffickers wandering free among our Blessed White American Citizens!" Lol, right? Smh @ this stupid myth of "immigrants are criminals". Immigrants commit less crime than citizens. by HatetheSwamp on March 23, 2025 5:12 pm Everything illegal immigrant is, by definition, a criminal. Duh. by Donna on March 23, 2025 5:27 pm This is something our two Trump apologists are getting wrong. ABA Legal Fact Check: Do Undocumented Immigrants Have Legal Rights Under U.S. Law? On July 5, President Donald Trump tweeted that undocumented or illegal immigrants should be immediately forced to leave the United States without any court review. “When people, with or without children, enter our Country, they must be told to leave without our… country being forced to endure a long and costly trial. Tell the people ‘OUT,’ and they must leave, just as they would if they were standing on your front lawn. Hiring thousands of ‘judges’ does not work and is not acceptable.” So, are undocumented immigrants entitled to their day in court? Several U.S. Supreme Court cases have given undocumented immigrants the same rights as Americans in situations where laws or the constitution refer to “persons” or “people.” However, “citizens” enjoy additional rights, such as working, voting in national and state elections and, in some states, drivers’ licenses. And under U.S. law, those who have valid grounds for asylum are entitled to a hearing. The 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1868 after the end of the Civil War, specifically states, “Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Generally, citizens receive rights such as the right to vote and work and additional privileges granted by state and national laws. Citing the constitution, courts have typically bestowed rights to noncitizens based on broader concepts related to the dignity of an individual independent of national status. That point was underscored by the U.S. Supreme Court, beginning with a case in 1886 involving different treatment of laundries owned by Chinese nationals in San Francisco. Then, the court asserted “the guarantees of protection contained in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution extend to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, without regard to differences of race, of color or of nationality.” Nearly 100 years later, the Supreme Court cited this case and a handful of subsequent cases in its landmark 1982 decision, Plyer v. Doe, providing undocumented children the right to a public education. A Texas school district had argued that persons who have entered the U.S. illegally are not “within the jurisdiction” of a state even if they are present within its boundaries and subject to its laws. The high court in Plyer rejected that argument. “Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is surely a ‘person’ in any ordinary sense of that term. Aliens, even aliens whose presence in this country is unlawful, have long been recognized as ‘persons’ guaranteed due process of law by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments,” Justice William Brennan said in the 5-4 Plyer decision. In 1993, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in Reno v Flores that the courts have “well established … that the Fifth Amendment entitles aliens to due process of law in deportation proceedings.” Due process is the legal concept requiring that all proceedings be fair and that an individual be given notice of the proceedings and an opportunity to be heard before the government acts to take away one’s life, liberty or property. The Flores case gave rise to a 1997 settlement requiring the government to release children to their parents, a relative or a licensed program within 20 days of apprehension — an arrangement that the Trump administration has so far unsuccessfully sought to modify through the courts. In 1996, Congress passed a law that allowed for expedited removal of undocumented immigrants without a hearing, which was initially applied to apprehensions at a U.S. port of entry. Expedited removal was later expanded and applied to apprehensions of undocumented immigrants that take place within 100 miles of the border and within 14 days of entering the country. An exemption applies for those who express a fear of persecution or an intention to apply for asylum after passing a screening process — a provision that some say the Trump administration is trying to undercut. So, except when exemptions exist, undocumented immigrants do have due process and equal protection rights under U.S. law. lawandcrime.com by oldedude on March 24, 2025 12:07 am Okay, first the ABA has no legal standing anywhere. They have an "opinion" just like the "AMA" or "AARP." Although I "may" respect their opine, the courts say differently. That's the test. OUR LAWS have a castle doctrine. It's the rule of law that you adhere to. As Christ said. OUR LAW says it can happen. My guess is that you need to read the law, instead of relying on your "memory" or someone else's regurgitation of the bible. The fact is that you are choosing to live under a country of LAWS. Not how you read them but how people who have been trained in the LAW read them. The same thing would happen if you lived in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE or some other nation. Actually, maybe Panama, which is a very Catholic country. Where you and po couldn't get a room together because in some places, same sexes cannot occupy the same room. And yes, that's perfectly legal to deny you rooms in their hotel. If you don't like it, you always have a choice, just like everyone else. by HatetheSwamp on March 24, 2025 3:48 am So, if an illegal mugs grammy, or robs your neighborhood liquor store, they must be read their Miranda Rights. But, if they entered the country illegally, they are criminals,... by definition. by Navy2711 on March 24, 2025 8:38 am "But, if they entered the country illegally, they are criminals,... by definition." And? I don't happen to know what rights an illegal immigrant has, but CRIMINALS still have rights. If you rob a Walmart, at that point you're a criminal. If the cops catch you while running from the scene, you still have rights. by meagain on March 24, 2025 9:51 am But, if they entered the country illegally, they are criminals,... by definition. That depends on the method. A great many illegals are seekers and people who overstay visas. Neither of those has committed a criminal offence. They are also more law abiding than the general population. by oldedude on March 24, 2025 1:23 pm donna- First, since trumpster has taken the helm, I have been more critical of him than supportive. Just to get that out of the way. Like DOGE, I think he's a bull in the china closet. I am questionable about #2 depending on your preconceived notions. If you believe a "terrorist" is some camel herder in a cave, you really need to read up. I'm hoping you understand my support and my misgivings about the situation. I think by the "letter of the law" trumpster can do this. I also think the district court judge is out of line. The law is very specific. It's ONLY up to the president or the secretary of state to make that decision. The first question is "Are they admissible Aliens?" 8 U.S. Code § 1182 - Inadmissible aliens. This law states if a person can or cannot be admitted into the United States. This is the sticking point between pedojoe and the GOP, the GOP saying that if you don't vet the person coming into the country how do you know they're "Admissible?" If they should have been turned away at the border, then what standing to they hold? That's what the argument is about now, and what your lead post was mostly talking about. They believe they still have standing. I don't know. Sections 2 (A),(B),(C), and (D) are applicable in this case. My grandfather was held at Ellis Island because he had the flu (Section 1). The second question is "are they 'terrorists'"? My bet is that you and I differ in that opinion. I'm pretty adamant they fit the legal definition which is the toughest one to prove. This falls under Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 2331. According to the State Department, Groups can be designated as Foreign Terrorist Organizations under the Immigration and Nationality Act. This is a pretty narrow description of the terrorist (gang members in this case). That's what he's using in this case. Are they terrorists? I have the statute below my remarks. The Bolded areas are what they are using so they're easier to find. Third question; does EO 13224 have standing here. Executive Order 13224 Then-President Bush signed Executive Order 13224 on September 23, 2001. Executive Order 13224 gives the U.S. Government a powerful tool to impede terrorist funding and is part of our national commitment to lead the international effort to bring a halt to the evil of terrorist activity. The second piece of this is under Executive Order (E.O.) 13224 (2001), a wider range of entities, including terrorist groups, individuals acting as part of a terrorist organization, and other entities such as financiers and front companies, can be designated as Specially Designated Global Terrorists (SDGTs). When looking EO 13224 up, I was pretty scared the EO was done by trumpster. That wouldn't be good by any means. It was done right after 9/11. If either obomber or pedojoe wanted to get rid of it they could have very easily. TdA and MS13 can all be charged with knowingly selling drugs. Prostitution and commercialized vice is chargeable for any of the males that are bringing women into the country, pimping, security for the prostitutes. This is what they used for the evidence collection for the Tsarnaev brothers, San Diego murderers, and directly for Mahmoud Khalil. Third Question: does the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 have standing to deport non-citizens out of the country. I did a rundown on this in another Thread, cited #4. The rest of this are the citations, so you can read them or not. Trying to make the really boring parts easy to skip if you want. 18 U.S. Code § 2331 - Definitions As used in this chapter— (1) the term “international terrorism” means activities that— (A) involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State; (B)appear to be intended— (i)to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii)to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii)to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (C)occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum; (2)the term “national of the United States” has the meaning given such term in section 101(a)(22) of the Immigration and Nationality Act; (3)the term “person” means any individual or entity capable of holding a legal or beneficial interest in property; (4)the term “act of war” means any act occurring in the course of— (A)declared war; (B)armed conflict, whether or not war has been declared, between two or more nations; or (C)armed conflict between military forces of any origin; (5)the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that— (A)involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; (B)appear to be intended— (i)to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii)to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii)to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (C)occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States; and (6)the term “military force” does not include any person that— (A)has been designated as a— (i)foreign terrorist organization by the Secretary of State under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1189); or (ii)specially designated global terrorist (as such term is defined in section 594.310 of title 31, Code of Federal Regulations) by the Secretary of State or the Secretary of the Treasury; or (B)has been determined by the court to not be a “military force”. (a)Classes of aliens ineligible for visas or admission Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, aliens who are inadmissible under the following paragraphs are ineligible to receive visas and ineligible to be admitted to the United States: ... (2)Criminal and related grounds (A)Conviction of certain crimes (i)In general Except as provided in clause (ii), any alien convicted of, or who admits having committed, or who admits committing acts which constitute the essential elements of— (I)a crime involving moral turpitude (other than a purely political offense) or an attempt or conspiracy to commit such a crime, or (II)a violation of (or a conspiracy or attempt to violate) any law or regulation of a State, the United States, or a foreign country relating to a controlled substance (as defined in section 802 of title 21),  is inadmissible. (C)Controlled substance traffickers Any alien who the consular officer or the Attorney General knows or has reason to believe— (i)is or has been an illicit trafficker in any controlled substance or in any listed chemical (as defined in section 802 of title 21), or is or has been a knowing aider, abettor, assister, conspirator, or colluder with others in the illicit trafficking in any such controlled or listed substance or chemical, or endeavored to do so; or (ii)is the spouse, son, or daughter of an alien inadmissible under clause (i), has, within the previous 5 years, obtained any financial or other benefit from the illicit activity of that alien, and knew or reasonably should have known that the financial or other benefit was the product of such illicit activity, is inadmissible. (D)Prostitution and commercialized vice Any alien who— (i)is coming to the United States solely, principally, or incidentally to engage in prostitution, or has engaged in prostitution within 10 years of the date of application for a visa, admission, or adjustment of status, (ii)directly or indirectly procures or attempts to procure, or (within 10 years of the date of application for a visa, admission, or adjustment of status) procured or attempted to procure or to import, prostitutes or persons for the purpose of prostitution, or receives or (within such 10-year period) received, in whole or in part, the proceeds of prostitution, or (iii)is coming to the United States to engage in any other unlawful commercialized vice, whether or not related to prostitution, is inadmissible. Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001 Blocking Property and Prohibiting Transactions With Persons Who Commit, Threaten To Commit, or Support Terrorism This allows the government to deport based on bank records, acts of money laundering, transferring money, aid and abet with food, housing, support on a website, etcetcetc. (see cite #4) law.cornell.edu federalregister.gov law.cornell.edu selectsmart.com by Donna on March 24, 2025 4:24 pm "As Christ said. OUR LAW says it can happen. My guess is that you need to read the law, instead of relying on your "memory" or someone else's regurgitation of the bible." - olde dude Christ never said that. And why are you bringing up Christ in this topic thread? I'm fully aware that the American Bar Association doesn't make court rulings. I posted that because the ABA is an authoritative source on U.S. law. What's the criminal charge against Khalil? The regime hasn't said. I'm guessing that he didn't break any laws, and that Trump just doesn't like his activism and decided to use him as a sort of head-on-a-pike to shut down dissent. by HatetheSwamp on March 24, 2025 5:42 pm Donna, I don't think anyone is accusing him of a crime. by oldedude on March 24, 2025 8:09 pm No one has. He's on a visa detainer. Again, he could be in a far worse place. He could have been taken in the middle of the night like the Saudis take journalists. Spirited off to some unnamed country in some unnamed place. Or he could be given to the Israelis for questioning (never to return). OR questioned by the Israelis and given back to Hamas, who knows he was "questioned" by the Israelis. They may find his body in rubble or buried in an unmarked grave. Or facing terrorism charges in the US for 20-50 years for terrorist activity with Hamas. All they need is a couple of pictures loading unknown "boxes" that are the same size as ammo boxes. Yes, he's detained. And things could be a whole lot worse. Being deported? Easy day. He'll be well taken care of, put on a flight, and he's back! easypeasy. Go To Top

Find old posts & articles

Show Most Recent Articles Articles by category: Politics+ Religion+ Law & Crime Military News Media History Health Sports+ Humor Entertainment Misc.

Report spam & abuse SelectSmart.com home page